alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 6 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission 

with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2011 

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. 

BURR, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COATS, Mr. COBURN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. 

CORKER, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. ENZI, Mr. 

GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. 

ISAKSON, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. KIRK, Mr. 

KYL, Mr. LEE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. 

SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. THUNE, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. 

VITTER, and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following joint resolution; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the Internet 

and broadband industry practices. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Fed4 eral Communications Commission relating to the matter 

5 of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 6 IS 

1 practices (Report and Order FCC 10–201, adopted by the 

2 Commission on December 21, 2010), and such rule shall 

3 have no force or effect. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
ex10-31.htm


    
      

      

    


    EXHIBIT
10.31

    


    


    Overview
of Financial Counseling Services Program

    


    


    In 2009,
TVA began offering a Financial Counseling Services Program for a limited number
of executives approved by the CEO.  Under the program, participants
are eligible to receive personal financial counseling services, such as estate
planning, investment planning, income tax planning, income tax preparation, and
retirement planning.  TVA pays the cost of the program for each
participant and also pays each participant a gross-up amount that reasonably
approximates the additional income and employment taxes estimated to be payable
as a result of TVA’s payments pursuant to the program.  The program is
administered by The Ayco Company, L.P.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4742

_____________________________

HENRY LYNN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James C. Hankinson, Judge.

October 23, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., and WOLF and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Candice Kaye Brower, Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal 

Conflict and Civil Regional Conflict, Gainesville; and Melissa Joy 

Ford, Assistant Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and 

Civil Regional Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Henry Lynn, 

pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 23.2**
**Statement Regarding Consent of Arthur Andersen LLP**
     Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “SecuritiesAct”), provides that if part of a registration statement at the time it becomeseffective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a materialfact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements thereinnot misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registrationstatement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such personknew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, anaccountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part of theregistration statement or as having prepared any report for use in connectionwith the registration statement.
     On May 29, 2002, ITLA Capital Corporation (the “Company”) dismissed ArthurAndersen LLP (“Arthur Andersen”) as its independent public accountants andengaged Ernst & Young LLP to serve as its independent public accountants forthe year ended December 31, 2002. In 2002, Arthur Andersen ceased practicingbefore the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”). As a result,the Company has been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen’s written consent to theincorporation by reference into registration statements filed with theCommission by the Company of their audit report with respect to the Company’sconsolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2001,included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2003.
     The absence of such consent may limit recovery by investors on certainclaims. In particular, and without limitation, investors may not be able toassert claims against Arthur Anderson under Section 11(a) of the Securities Actfor any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the financialstatements audited by Arthur Andersen or any omissions of a material factrequired to be stated therein. Accordingly, investors would be unable toassert a claim against Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of the SecuritiesAct because it has not consented to the incorporation by reference of itspreviously issued report into registration statements filed with the Commissionby the Company.
81
EXHIBIT 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of CuraGen Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q/A) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                                                                                                               
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  |  |    
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: March 10, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Patrick J. Zenner
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Patrick J. Zenner                                                                                                             
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board (principal executive officer of the registrant)                     
|                      |  | 
|                      |  |  |  |    
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: March 10, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ David M. Wurzer  
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | David M. Wurzer                                                                                                               
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal financial and accounting officer of the registrant)
#### Mary Feeney et al., Appellants, v Booth Memorial Medical Center et al., Defendants, and Jerome S. Seiler, P. C., Respondent.

— In a medical malpractice action, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kunzeman, J.), dated November 30, 1983, which, after a traverse hearing, granted defendant Seiler’s motion for summary judgment based on lack of personal jurisdiction, severed the action as to him, and directed that judgment be entered dismissing the complaint as to him, and denied that branch of plaintiffs’ cross motion as sought to strike the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction interposed by defendant Seiler.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The issue on traverse was whether defendant Seiler was personally served with a summons and complaint at his office on *866February 13, 1980. The process server testified that he personally served the individual who identified himself as Dr. Jerome Seiler. The doctor testified that he was never personally served, but rather, found the summons lying on the floor of his office, near the reception area. Testimony was also elicited from both of Dr. Seiler’s secretaries that they had no recollection of a process server coming to the office on the day in question. As such, the conflicting testimony presented an issue of credibility which the hearing court determined in favor of Dr. Seiler by holding that he had not been properly served with process. It is by now well established that matters of credibility are properly determined by the hearing court, whose decision should not be disturbed if supportable by a fair interpretation of the evidence *(see, Altman v Wallach,*104 AD2d 391; *Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v Arrao,*100 AD2d 949). We hold that Special Term’s findings were supported by the record, and there was no error in giving Dr. Seiler’s testimony more credence than the version to which the process server testified. This is especially true in view of the fact that both parties agree on appeal that a portion of the process server’s sworn testimony was inaccurate. Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.
#### John Zabilansky et al.1 v. American Building Restoration Products, Inc. et al.2

Superior Court, Middlesex, SS

No. 0101985

Memorandum Dated December 27, 2004

1

 Barbara Zabilansky.

2

Boston Restoration Supply, Inc. and BCB Painting, Inc.

Gershengorn, J.

Defendants American Building Restoration Products, Inc. (“ABRP”) and BCB Painting, Inc. (“BCB”) move pursuant to G.L.c. 261, §1 and Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(d) and (e) that the Court assess costs against plaintiffs. Defendant ABRP requests an amount of $12,896.39 and defendant BCB requests an amount of $11,317.670. As a general rule in Massachusetts, a litigant must bear his own expenses except in so far as a statute permits the award of costs, there is a valid contract or stipulation providing costs, or rules concerning damages permit recovery of costs. *Broadhurst v. Director of the Division of Employment Security,*373 Mass. 720, 720 (1977) (citations omitted). Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), provides, in pertinent part, that “[ejxcept when express provision therefor is made either in a statute of the Commonwealth or in these rules, costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs ...” This rule is consistent with G.L.c. 261, §1, which provides that “[i]n civil actions the prevailing party shall recover his costs, except as otherwise provided.” While both the rule and the statute allow courts the discretion to determine if costs should be taxed at all, where such costs are permitted, an award of costs is allowable only when based on “specific affirmative authority.” *Demoulas v. Demoulas,*423 Mass. 43, 64 (2000), citing *Broadhurst,*373 Mass, at 722.

Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 54(e) sets forth the costs associated with depositions that the prevailing party may recover. General Laws c. 262, §29 sets forth the costs associated with witnesses that the prevailing party may recover. Neither, Mass.R.Civ.P. 54(e) nor G.L.c. 262, §29 expressly authorizes taxation of an attorneys expense of traveling to a deposition; the operator’s cost of playing an audio-visual deposition at trial; the transcription of medical records; Daubert hearing transcripts; a witness or deponent’s hotel expenses; or a party’s cost of traveling to the trial. Accordingly, this Court subtracts the costs listed above from the amounts requested by defendants ABRP and BCB, and awards costs against the plaintiff as required by statute: $8,163.20 to defendant ABRP and $7,484.88 to defendant BCB.3

*ORDER*

It is therefore *ORDERED*that judgment enter for defendant ABRP in the amount of eight thousand one hundred and sixty-three dollars and twenty cents ($8,163.20), plus interest and costs as provided by law, and seven thousand four hundred and eighty-four dollars and eighty-eight cents ($7,484.88), plus interest and costs as required by law, against plaintiffs John and Barbara Zabilansky.

3

included in this calculation, this Court has subtracted an amount of $549.00 from the defendant BCB’s requested award, for the deposition of Janice Nixon. The plaintiffs have submitted evidence that they have already reimbursed BCB this amount.
# C_2021072EN.01002101.xml

| 1.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Optima Naturals (OptiMar)

(Case T-261/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark OptiMar - Earlier national word mark Mar - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 72/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Optima Naturals Srl (Gallarate, Italy) (represented by: S. Brustia and E. Montelione, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2019 (Case R 1348/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Stada Arzneimittel and Optima Naturals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---
Exhibit 32.2

NANOGEN, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the accompanying Quarterly Report of Nanogen Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended March 31, 2008 (the Report), I, Nicholas Venuto, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                        
|-------------- |  | -----------------------
|               | 
|August 8, 2008 |  | /s/ NICHOLAS J. VENUTO 
|               |  | Nicholas J. Venuto     
|               |  | Chief Financial Officer
# C_2021502EN.01004203.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/42

---

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2021 — Arris Global v Commission

(Case T-731/19) (1)

(2021/C 502/65)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15429]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-50, OMB Control No. 3235-0060]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form 8-K

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved 
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 8-K (17 CFR 249.308) is filed by issuers to satisfy their 
current reporting obligations pursuant to Section 13 and 15(d) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m and 78o(d)) in 
connection with the occurrence of significant corporate events. The 
purpose of Form 8-K is to provide investors with prompt disclosure of 
material information so that investors will be able to make investment 
and voting decisions better informed and receive information more 
timely. We estimate that Form 8-K takes 9.2145 hours per response and 
is filed by 118,387 responses annually. We estimate that 75% of the 
9.2145 hours per response (6.91087 hours) is prepared by the issuer for 
a total annual reporting burden of 818,158 hours (6.91087 hours per 
response x 118,387 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information 
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this 
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day 
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom, 
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by 
sending an email to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c39391829c8ea2aaafa1acbb83b0a6a0eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f9a9abb8a6b49890959b9681b98a9c9ad79e968f">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: July 15, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15429 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.2  Certification of Periodic Report   Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the undersigneds knowledge:  (1)
     the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   Dated:May 7, 2010/s/ Mary T. MinchName:  Mary T. Minch
Title: Executive Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
   THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.


---
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




Written
      Statement of Principal Executive Officer Furnished Pursuant to


18
      U.S.C.
      Section 1350,


as
      Adopted by


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of HouseRaising, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert V. McLemore,
      President and Founder, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
      that:




(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition as of December 31, 2005 and results of operations for
      the year ended December 31, 2005 of the Company and its
      subsidiaries.






/s/
      Robert V. McLemore


_______________________________


Robert
      V.
      McLemore


President
      and Founder (Principal Executive Officer)





March
      31,
      2006





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Larry CALLOWAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50062

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 22, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bem-porad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Larry Calloway appeals the 36-month sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release. He argues that his sentence, which was above the recommended range, is plainly unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We review sentences imposed on revocation of supervised release under the plainly unreasonable standard. *United States v. Miller,*634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.2011). Calloway did not object in the district court. Therefore, we review his appeal for plain error only. *See United States v. Whitelaw,*580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir.2009); *see also Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

Because the 36-month sentence Callo-way received on revocation was not greater than the term authorized by statute, it is “clearly legal.” *United States v. Pena,*125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir.1997). Additionally, this court has routinely upheld sentences on revocation greater than the advisory policy range but within the statutory maximum. *See United States v. Milligan,*353 Fed.Appx. 954 (5th Cir.2009)(unpublished); *United States v. Jones,*182 Fed.Appx. 343, 344 (5th Cir.2006) (unpublished).1 Thus, there is no plain error with regard to Calloway’s 36-month sentence. *See Puckett,*129 S.Ct. at 1429. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. Although these unpublished decisions are not precedent, we cite them as exemplars of sentences upheld by our court in the past.